Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[United Prefectures of Appia]

That is a complete lie from the righties. They've been testing this experiment for several years and it has proven to be effective. Smith and Wesson got a hissy fit when California was proposing to implement this technology. So like little snot-faced temper-tantrum whiny brats, they threatened to pull their business out of the state, the 7th largest economy in the country.

Yes, they've been testing it. It can be done, but not at scale. Every single firing pin has to be made unique. That's not even close to realistic.

But it's not virtually impossible.

[Equestria and Griffon]

As far as I know the bible doesn't say a thing as far as ones ability to own a weapon of any kind.

Bullshit. In Genesis, it clearly states "God created Adam, Eve, the sky, and loads of good 'ol Murican guns."

Fun fact, America was created before Yahweh.

I didn't.

[Robert Magoo]

Yes, they've been testing it. It can be done, but not at scale. Every single firing pin has to be made unique. That's not even close to realistic.

But it's not virtually impossible.

The key word being "virtually." It's an "effective" ban. It's something so ridiculously over the top, that it might as well be a ban. If it were doable, it would be completely reasonable. But it's not, really.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Bables 'N Goons!
How the world sees 'Murica.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

We've been over this. Australia's gun ban shows little evidence of improvement.

Apparently you haven't. Australia's gun control laws were very effective. When was the last time they had a mass gun murder that even came close to the one that slaughtered the town over 20 years ago?

Irrelevant, since mass killings continued even after the ban. Looking quickly at Wikipedia, there are as many mass killings after Port Arthur as the 14 years before.

What about other violent crimes in Australia?

[Jamzmania]

Apparently you haven't. Australia's gun control laws were very effective. When was the last time they had a mass gun murder that even came close to the one that slaughtered the town over 20 years ago?

Irrelevant, since mass killings continued even after the ban. Looking quickly at Wikipedia, there are as many mass killings after Port Arthur as the 14 years before.

What about other violent crimes in Australia?

I remember seeing statistics that suggested that violent crimes actually increased after the gun ban. I mean, less people to stop you, right?

[Spirit of Hope]

We've been over this. Australia's gun ban shows little evidence of improvement.

Apparently you haven't. Australia's gun control laws were very effective. When was the last time they had a mass gun murder that even came close to the one that slaughtered the town over 20 years ago?

1) Mass killings are incredibly uncommon. A reduction in guns might not be the reason why there were no mass killings with guns. Especially important because there have been situations approximating mass killings with guns in Australia that the police have managed to stop before they became mass killings.
2) The vast majority of deaths involving guns are regular homicides, and Australia's laws have not actually effected its regular gun homicide rate. While there are less gun homicides, they match the rate in decline of all homicides.

[Jamzmania]

Microstamping is virtually impossible, and meant (by its creators, not necessarily all supporters like yourself) as a backdoor method of effectively banning guns altogether.

That is a complete lie from the righties. They've been testing this experiment for several years and it has proven to be effective. Smith and Wesson got a hissy fit when California was proposing to implement this technology. So like little snot-faced temper-tantrum whiny brats, they threatened to pull their business out of the state, the 7th largest economy in the country.

If I remember correctly, no gun manufacturing company (at least no major ones) use microstamping. So to ban non-micostamped guns would effectively, well, ban guns.

[Rhoderberg]

Bables 'N Goons!
How the world sees 'Murica.

No one cares.

If I remember correctly, no gun manufacturing company (at least no major ones) use microstamping. So to ban non-micostamped guns would effectively, well, ban guns.

Which happens to be exactly what they want.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Irrelevant, since mass killings continued even after the ban. Looking quickly at Wikipedia, there are as many mass killings after Port Arthur as the 14 years before.

What about other violent crimes in Australia?

And yet, the statistics still supports my claims that gun control is effective. Funny how none of the murders committed listed in the stats after the ban weren't committed by guns... Hmm I wonder why. The number of deaths before the ban is higher than the ones that came after it. Sorry, try again.

[Sevvania]

We've been over this. Australia's gun ban shows little evidence of improvement.

Apparently you haven't. Australia's gun control laws were very effective. When was the last time they had a mass gun murder that even came close to the one that slaughtered the town over 20 years ago?

Currently on my iPod, so I can't format it as nicely as I normally do, but here's a passage from the "Gun Politics in Australia" page on Wikipedia:

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."[43]

Edit in regards to deaths being lower after the ban than before it: that happens if gun homicide was already following a steady trend of decline. Gun homicides in the US are lower after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired than they were when the ban was in effect, that doesnt mean the regained freedom to own certain styles of semi auto rifle had a direct correlation to reducing the homicide rates.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yes, a civil rights organization opposes additional actions that infringe on civil rights. What a shock.
It's odd that they, and all those politicians who they have in their pocket, don't seem interested in repealing the NFA act, the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, the '68 gun control act, the Hughes Amendment, the Undetectable Firearms Act or the Brady Gun Control Act, though. In fact, the NRA, and most of these supposed politicians they have in their pocket, have even voiced their support for these laws, with some criticism of specific elements where changes could occur to make things more efficient, fair, or effective. Either that or they have just remained silent, such as in the case of the NRA wrt the Undetectable Firearms Act. I should think It would be hard for there to be a pro-gun conspiracy to repeal gun-control laws if they don't talk about something. Or is the NRA capable of telepathically pushing for these things and you just can't 'hear' it?
...
Seems more likely you just want a boogeyman you can attribute a conspiracy to...It's also rather telling you don't seem to bemoan the presence of money in politics when it comes from Bloomberg. But it seems corruption of money in politics only occurs within the group that has the telepathic nonverbally-communicatted conspiracy contradicting their verbal and written public statements and stances on the matter.

Oh yeah you're right, back in the good 'ol days when NRA was actually a legitimate organization that cared about gun control reforms and helped pushed said laws into action like the ones you mention [cough]even though you 'failed' to mention that in the late 70's some of the nra members who were extreme right-wingers toppled the leadership overnight in a coup de tat and perverted everything the NRA once stood fo and now two union soldiers who fought in the american civil war are now rolling in their graves.[/cough]
...

So, ignoring your nearly-incoherent ranting and raving in the second paragraph, it would be relevant to your 'point' here to note that the leadership you refer to was kicked out or left (Knox in 1982, and Carter in 1985 vice-versa, Carter in '82, Knox in '85), not to mention the fact that the Undetectable Firearms Act, the Hughes Amendment, and the Brady Act all came around after the 70s 'coup' you're so obsessed over, and remain as acts that the NRA doesn't take issue with (in the case of the Undetectable Firearms Act) or actively support (NICS requirements aren't challenged and are actively supported by the NRA. As is the current outline of the NFA with the Hughes Amendment in place). The status quo receives their defense AT THE WORST (in the case of them lobbying state government to remove additional state restrictions on NFA items and such, or opposing Assault weapons bans from the federal government).

So...stop bullshitting yourself a boogeyman and take issue with what the NRA actually does rather than what you imagine it actually does. Or change the focus of this imaginary ire you have to the GOA or other similar 'no-compromise' groups (this would also be relevant to your issue since the GOA was founded by Knox, one of the 'extreme right-wingers' who rose to power in the NRA and which you have such a bugaboo about with the NRA despite their not formulating policy for practically three decades), which DO actively condemn the federal acts I mentioned.

To quote an NRA rifle instructor I had in my youth "Know your goddamned target, kid. Think before you pull the trigger."

You referred to the NRA as the puppetmaster behind politicians seeking to deregulate firearms

Because they are. But the true puppetmasters however are actual gun makers.

It's a conspiracy within a conspiracy!
CONSPIRACEPTION!

Did you read my post, I've already acknowledged their efforts to push for gun control laws, unless of course you're referring to periods after the '70's in which case I haven't found any example where the NRA pushed for gun control reforms yet.

You apparently didn't look too hard and don't have much knowledge of the history of 'gun-control' legislation.

I don't advocate bans on all guns, just reasonable gun control laws like other civilized developed first world nations have. Leave the knee-jerking mentality to gun nuts.

This is humorous due to lack of historical understanding, lack of questioning as to what is 'reasonable', and the knee-jerk condemnation of an organization based on leadership that was briefly in power three decades ago without the previous two points being considered to somehow temper the randomness of the condemnation.

As others have mentioned, 'reasonable' varies by definition and I'd condemn the person who knee-jerkingly condemns 'scurry black people rifles' without any facts to back them, and actively in contradiction of what those facts when brought up say, up before saying it of a broad and overgeneralized group.

What is reasonable gun control laws? Because what I believe is reasonable and what you believe are reasonable are probably very different.

How about for one, stop giving dangerous firearms to kids like fucking candy (1). Too bad common sense is not ubiquitous in 'Murica (2). Implement bullet microstamping on all guns sold (3). Hell, let's make this easier, why not follow some of the gun laws in Australia for example (4)?

1) You mean that thing that doesn't happen and you just made up? I don't know what school YOU went to, bucko, but mine did not issue me a 1911 upon graduation from third grade. Nor do any others in the entirety of the United States. Are you high?
The federal laws forbidding the sale of handguns or handgun ammunition to people under 21 (or their possession by such individuals with a few exceptions that, if I recall, are competition-centered), in addition to the ones forbidding the sale of rifles or shotguns or rifle and shotgun ammunition to people under 18, would also seem to suggest that you're actively saying the opposite of what happens.

2) Nor, apparently, is any kind of understanding of firearms laws amongst certain segments of the population.

3) Err...stamp the bullets or require guns somehow stamp the bullets? Because the latter is now effectively occurring via the forensic method of ballistic matching, and the former is fucking pointless what with the latter being effectively done already.

4) Because Australia isn't the US, there's little indication items such as their 'assault' weapons ban did anything to actually counteract crime while impeding the noncriminal usage of a shitton of firearms, and because we probably wouldn't be able to understand what the hell their laws were anyways. I mean, have you HEARD Australians talk? 'English-speaking country' my ass.

Bables 'N Goons!
How the world sees 'Murica.

Didn't watch due to irrelevance.

[Spirit of Hope]

Irrelevant, since mass killings continued even after the ban. Looking quickly at Wikipedia, there are as many mass killings after Port Arthur as the 14 years before.

What about other violent crimes in Australia?

And yet, the statistics still supports my claims that gun control is effective. Funny how none of the murders committed listed in the stats after the ban weren't committed by guns... Hmm I wonder why. The number of deaths before the ban is higher than the ones that came after it. Sorry, try again.

Accept the general homicide rate fell at the same rate that gun homicides did, so either the loss of guns decreased all homicides or gun homicides were not effected by the ban.

Additionally there have been mass shootings, or events that could have been mass shootings since the ban.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Irrelevant, since mass killings continued even after the ban. Looking quickly at Wikipedia, there are as many mass killings after Port Arthur as the 14 years before.

What about other violent crimes in Australia?

And yet, the statistics still supports my claims that gun control is effective. Funny how none of the murders committed listed in the stats after the ban weren't committed by guns...Hmm I wonder why. The number of deaths before the ban is higher than the ones that came after it.

Besides the fact that Mass killings are a very small portion of violent crimes, there was still an equal amount of mass killings before to after, regardless of how many were killed.

Sorry, try again.

How about you show statistics on violent crimes in Australia?

[Grinning Dragon]

We've been over this. Australia's gun ban shows little evidence of improvement.

Apparently you haven't. Australia's gun control laws were very effective. When was the last time they had a mass gun murder that even came close to the one that slaughtered the town over 20 years ago?

Australia also doesn't have a 2nd Amendment in their Constitution like the United States does.

Microstamping is a flawed concept and is easily defeatable. Policing ones brass, filling off the typeset, making a new firing pin, etc. are just some easy examples

[Grinning Dragon]

Irrelevant, since mass killings continued even after the ban. Looking quickly at Wikipedia, there are as many mass killings after Port Arthur as the 14 years before.

What about other violent crimes in Australia?

And yet, the statistics still supports my claims that gun control is effective. Funny how none of the murders committed listed in the stats after the ban weren't committed by guns... Hmm I wonder why. The number of deaths before the ban is higher than the ones that came after it. Sorry, try again.

Oh so it's ok if murders are committed with other types of weapons as long as it wasn't a gun? Ok gotcha.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Apparently you haven't. Australia's gun control laws were very effective. When was the last time they had a mass gun murder that even came close to the one that slaughtered the town over 20 years ago?

Australia also doesn't have a 2nd Amendment in their Constitution like the United States does.

Microstamping is a flawed concept and is easily defeatable. Policing ones brass, filling off the typeset, making a new firing pin, etc. are just some easy examples

Hell, get spent casings from a range or somewhere and throw a handful out when you shoot someone after policing your brass (or or even before).
All of a sudden, depending on the particulars one does in the process, you've either broadened the candidate pool to multiple people, absolved yourself from culpability via that avenue of evidence, or actively framed someone else.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

So, ignoring your nearly-incoherent ranting and raving in the second paragraph, it would be relevant to your 'point' here to note that the leadership you refer to was kicked out or left (Knox in 1982, and Carter in 1985 vice-versa, Carter in '82, Knox in '85), not to mention the fact that the Undetectable Firearms Act, the Hughes Amendment, and the Brady Act all came around after the 70s 'coup' you're so obsessed over, and remain as acts that the NRA doesn't take issue with (in the case of the Undetectable Firearms Act) or actively support (NICS requirements aren't challenged and are actively supported by the NRA. As is the current outline of the NFA with the Hughes Amendment in place). The status quo receives their defense AT THE WORST (in the case of them lobbying state government to remove additional state restrictions on NFA items and such, or opposing Assault weapons bans from the federal government).

The leadership quit politics, it doesn't necessarily mean they left the organization does it.

So...stop bullshitting yourself a boogeyman and take issue with what the NRA actually does rather than what you imagine it actually does. Or change the focus of this imaginary ire you have to the GOA or other similar 'no-compromise' groups (this would also be relevant to your issue since the GOA was founded by Knox, one of the 'extreme right-wingers' who rose to power in the NRA and which you have such a bugaboo about with the NRA despite their not formulating policy for practically three decades), which DO actively condemn the federal acts I mentioned.

If you don't wanna believe the fact that the NRA today is nothing like the NRA back then, well that's not my fucking problem is it. By your notion, we should believe that Democrats have always been Liberals while Republicans have always been Conservative, right?

To quote an NRA rifle instructor I had in my youth "Know your goddamned target, kid. Think before you pull the trigger."

http://cookies.com

Because they are. But the true puppetmasters however are actual gun makers.

It's a conspiracy within a conspiracy!
CONSPIRACEPTION!
What was that you said?

You apparently didn't look too hard and don't have much knowledge of the history of 'gun-control' legislation....

This is humorous due to lack of historical understanding, lack of questioning as to what is 'reasonable', and the knee-jerk condemnation of an organization based on leadership that was briefly in power three decades ago without the previous two points being considered to somehow temper the randomness of the condemnation.

Not as humorous as one who's trying to lecture me on historical understanding when he fails to understand the deep route of the NRA but instead counter-argues that it's all a conspiracy.

How about for one, stop giving dangerous firearms to kids like fucking candy (1). Too bad common sense is not ubiquitous in 'Murica (2). Implement bullet microstamping on all guns sold (3). Hell, let's make this easier, why not follow some of the gun laws in Australia for example (4)?

1) You mean that thing that doesn't happen and you just made up? I don't know what school YOU went to, bucko, but mine did not issue me a 1911 upon graduation from third grade. Nor do any others in the entirety of the United States. Are you high?
The federal laws forbidding the sale of handguns or handgun ammunition to people under 21 (or their possession by such individuals with a few exceptions that, if I recall, are competition-centered), in addition to the ones forbidding the sale of rifles or shotguns or rifle and shotgun ammunition to people under 18, would also seem to suggest that you're actively saying the opposite of what happens.

Oops, strike 2!

2) Nor, apparently, is any kind of understanding of firearms laws amongst certain segments of the population.

Oh good, then perhaps you can sit down with these gun rights activists who think the US has too much gun control laws.

3) Err...stamp the bullets or require guns somehow stamp the bullets? Because the latter is now effectively occurring via the forensic method of ballistic matching, and the former is fucking pointless what with the latter being effectively done already.

If you're going to continue to make excuses for gun makers, then I highly doubt you're that serious about gun control issues.

4) Because Australia isn't the US, there's little indication items such as their 'assault' weapons ban did anything to actually counteract crime while impeding the noncriminal usage of a shitton of firearms, and because we probably wouldn't be able to understand what the hell their laws were anyways. I mean, have you HEARD Australians talk? 'English-speaking country' my ass.

And Switzerland isn't the US either, yet gun rights activists like to bring that up, hmm I wonder why. You know what also isn't the US? Japan, New Zealand, and even Germany. And even amongst them, they're not fundamentally the same, but they do have something in common. Common sense reasonable effective gun controls. And yes they do have freedom. BTW wasn't it you or someone siding with you to say take a quick look at the Wiki? So what now?

Didn't watch due to irrelevance.

Yeah, only because that wasn't meant for you, but to those who brought up the bible in this thread as a joke and I just merely participated.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Last I checked, this thread is about gun control. Did you know that?

[Sociobiology]

Apparently you haven't. Australia's gun control laws were very effective. When was the last time they had a mass gun murder that even came close to the one that slaughtered the town over 20 years ago?

Irrelevant, since mass killings continued even after the ban. Looking quickly at Wikipedia, there are as many mass killings after Port Arthur as the 14 years before.

What about other violent crimes in Australia?

homicide down, armed and unarmed robbery down, sexual assault the same (and really unstable, seriously WTF Australia?), http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html
Not that I'm supporting Appia's stupid stamping idea.

we really just need universal background checks and maybe a national registry. Seriously if your going to follow a countries example use Switzerland or Canada.

[Grinning Dragon]

Australia also doesn't have a 2nd Amendment in their Constitution like the United States does.

Microstamping is a flawed concept and is easily defeatable. Policing ones brass, filling off the typeset, making a new firing pin, etc. are just some easy examples

Hell, get spent casings from a range or somewhere and throw a handful out when you shoot someone after policing your brass (or or even before).
All of a sudden, depending on the particulars one does in the process, you've either broadened the candidate pool to multiple people, absolved yourself from culpability via that avenue of evidence, or actively framed someone else.

I can just imagine the confusion that would ensue, that would be akin to numbering 3 pigs 1,2,and 4 and releasing them in a mall.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Not that I'm supporting Appia's stupid stamping idea.

The only thing dumber than the 'stupid' stamping idea is not willing to take preventative initiative.

we really just need universal background checks and maybe a national registry. Seriously if your going to follow a countries example use Switzerland or Canada.

Actually, I think we should adopt the mandatory military training from the Swiss to all American citizens if they wish to own a gun. That's probably the most I am willing to compromise.

[Grinning Dragon]

Last I checked, this thread is about gun control. Did you know that?

And? I responded with the narrative you had set. You specified that murders with guns went down after Australia did their gun ban thingy.
Gun control has unintended consequences.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Last I checked, this thread is about gun control. Did you know that?

And? I responded with the narrative you had set. You specified that murders with guns went down after Australia did their gun ban thingy.
Gun control has unintended consequences.

Gun control has unintended consequences? Can't argue with that. Having a ban which drops gun death rates significantly is a good thing right?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And? I responded with the narrative you had set. You specified that murders with guns went down after Australia did their gun ban thingy.
Gun control has unintended consequences.

Gun control has unintended consequences? Can't argue with that. Having a ban which drops gun death rates significantly is a good thing right?

[Citation needed]